obama global warminghttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/3576/all
enIs Obama Already Waffling on his Climate Change Commitment?http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/14/obama-already-waffling-climate-change-commitment
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/obama%20climate%20change%20hurricane.jpg?itok=43Y7x7E1" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In his first press conference after being re-elected, President Obama told reporters that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83865.html?hp=l3">climate change could take a backseat</a> to efforts to boost the economy in the near term.</p>
<p>It sure didn't take the President long to water down the passionate commitment he made to the electorate just a week ago when he stated in his acceptance speech that:</p>
<p>“We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that <em>isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”</em></p>
<p>Last time around, when there was a climate bill making its way through the House of Representatives we were told that the bill would be put on hold until Obama's health care reform was taken care of.</p>
<p>We all know what happened. No climate bill.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Obama is walking a fine line here when he told the gathered press that:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy, jobs and growth that if the message is somehow that we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”</p>
<p>Setting up a presumption that solutions to climate change are somehow an opposing force to economic growth has, in the case of many other politicians, been the first step down the road to avoiding doing much about the issue at all.</p>
<p>The United States continues to lag in the worldwide renewable energy boom. There is, for instance, a huge opportunity for the President to lead in education initiatives that will teach a generation of students the expertise they need to compete in a re-invented global energy sector. Not to mention the opportunities to re-invent America's manufacturing sector.</p>
<p>There is also the escalating costs to the American taxpayers to cover the devastating effects of climate change in the form of more frequent weather events like Hurricane Sandy, droughts in the farming belts and out-of-control wildfires like the ones we saw this summer in Utah and Colorado.</p>
<p>Time will tell whether Obama stays true to his word, but it sure as heck isn't a good sign that the President already appears to be waffling on an issue that just eight days ago he spoke so passionately about.</p>
<p>I guess time will tell if he truly is committed to seeing a world in which our children aren't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6660';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6660"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:03:53 +0000Kevin Grandia6660 at http://www.desmogblog.comProposed Aviation Law Will Test President Obama's Climate Change Commitmenthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/13/proposed-aviation-law-will-test-president-obama-s-climate-change-commitment
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/obama-oval-office.gif?itok=72QgY_u6" width="200" height="170" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In his acceptance speech last Tuesday, President Obama stated that: “We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that <em>isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”</em></p>
<p>The President's words will be put to the test very shortly.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://grist.org/article/obama-faces-first-big-post-election-climate-test/">Glenn Hurowitz points out on Grist</a>, a bill is about to land on the President's desk that will allow <span class="caps">US</span> airlines to ignore a European Union climate law.</p>
<p>Hurowitz writes:</p>
<p>“If he signs the bill, Obama will not only be failing to take sufficient action to address climate change, but actively going out of his way to stop another country from doing so – a pretty extreme act at the worst possible time.”</p>
<p>This is a line in the sand and a really big deal. We will soon know if President Obama plans to stay true to his word on his commitment to curb the emissions of climate change pollution by industry in the United States.</p>
<p>Hurowitz's piece is well worth the read, as it goes into a lot of detail on the issue of transnational aviation and climate change policy.</p>
<!--break--></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6656';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6656"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10974">glenn hurrowitz</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10975">EU aviation policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10976">aviation climate change</a></div></div></div>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:04:43 +0000Kevin Grandia6656 at http://www.desmogblog.comOil Companies Sabotaging America’s “Green” Revolutionhttp://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-sabotaging-america%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-revolution
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/capitol%20coal_0.JPG?itok=g2Wx8Qw6" width="200" height="300" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>If we act now to implement <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/">President Barack Obama’s energy plan</a> – which proposes investment in clean energy (and some badly needed jobs to boot) – we can avert a future in which the nation’s energy costs rise by $420 billion a year over the next five years.</p>
<p>That translates to <a href="http://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/Oil%20Company%20Scare%20Campaign%20March%2031%202009.pdf">$3,500</a> for every American family.</p>
<p>Obama’s plan, which aims to hold energy companies’ feet to the fire over global warming gases like carbon dioxide, is now being challenged by these same companies, who charge that the plan’s associated “<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5093057/GOP-Road-to-Recovery">energy taxes</a>” (estimated to <a href="http://www.energytomorrow.org/">exceed $400 billion</a>), will reduce investment in domestic oil and gas at a time when America is just beginning to develop these resources to free itself from dependence on foreign oil.</p>
<p>Oil company propaganda suggests that these energy taxes will mean not only less energy to heat homes, transport food, run factories and light schools, but will actually reduce local, state and federal revenues at a time when cities across America are struggling with deficits.</p>
<p>The Republicans, who have been supporting the oil barons since Reagan, cite a cost to every household of $3,128 if Obama’s plan prevails. The figures are close; it’s the slant that’s demented.</p>
<p>They call their plan the “<a href="http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final">Road to Recovery</a>”. I call it <span class="caps">BS</span>.</p>
<p><!--break-->Domestic oil and gas is not sold exclusively <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html">in America</a>, to Americans, at affordable rates, though this is the lie they would have you believe. Oil is sold in the international marketplace, at “spot” pricing that favors domestic oil. Witness the fact that, in 2007, the five major oil companies – Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, <span class="caps">BP</span> Chevron and ConocoPhillips – made almost <a href="http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/103679.pdf">$1.5 trillion in revenues</a> out of a revenue pool of $1.9 trillion. The industry leader, ExxonMobil, earned a 33.4-percent return on revenues. The manufacturing industry, by comparison, makes about a 5.8 percent return.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Oil companies aren’t in business to lose money, or to protect American financial stability, so they oppose renewable energy. In spite of that, renewables are the only sane way forward. Like <a href="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\12\29\story_29-12-2008_pg14_4">carbon reduction plans</a>, ramping up to renewable energy costs a lot in the beginning, but the costs decline as technology advances. In the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> this threshold effect is already beginning to reduce the costs of solar and wind.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In fact, thin-film solar company <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.solyndra.com/&amp;ei=7l7KSeTWOIKjtgerkP2fAw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=spellmeleon_result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ct=result&amp;cd=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNG1YMEt1z9ifu7IFxVWpxBzpfZhTA">Solyndra</a>, which recently won a loan guarantee from the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Energy under the 2005 <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf">Energy Policy Act</a> (but only after a nearly four-year hiatus, and with the help of a $6-billion allocation from the 2009 <a href="http://www.recovery.gov/">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act</a>), expects to hit <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/solyndra-to-make-solar-power-as-cheap-as-coal-in-2-3-years-2009-3">grid parity with coal</a> in 2-3 years.</p>
<p>Reliance on fossil fuels has led to rising gasoline prices and higher pass-through utility costs as energy companies <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/business/05gas.html?_r=1&amp;scp=2&amp;sq=utilities%20switching%20to%20natural%20gas&amp;st=cse">switch</a> to clean-burning natural gas to evade the environmental penalties of burning coal. Now, with the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> facing “<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/peak_natural_ga.php">Peak Gas</a>” (about <a href="http://www.ngsa.org/newsletter/pdfs/Climate_Legislation_Release3-11-08corrected.pdf">10 years worth</a> of supply at today’s consumption rates), and utility costs rising so fast that the average consumer must often choose between heating a home or buying medication, the next logical step is not returning to coal or oil, but focusing on renewables like solar and wind power.</p>
<p>Why? Simply because the hard work has already been done, and the light at the end of the tunnel (pun intended) is clearly visible, particularly on such cutting-edge developments as <a href="http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/02/22/how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night-or-during-rainy-days/">molted salt technology</a> to deliver solar energy even when the sun isn’t shining. </p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">This month we’re giving away <span class="caps">FREE</span> copies Keith Farnish’s new book <a href="http://greenbooks.co.uk/store/times-up-p-300.html">Times Up: an uncivilized solution to a global crisis. </a><strong></strong>
<p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="../../desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3804';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3804"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4154">obama greenhouse gas emissions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4155">oil companies climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4156">road to recovery plan</a></div></div></div>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:50:54 +0000Jeanne Roberts3804 at http://www.desmogblog.comReporters Miss The Boat (Again) on Fargo Flood, Fail to Mention It Fits Global Warming Trendshttp://www.desmogblog.com/reporters-miss-boat-again-fargo-flood-fail-mention-it-fits-global-warming-trends
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/fargo-flood-global-warming.jpg?itok=orpsL4cQ" width="200" height="125" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In an interview with reporters last week, President Barack Obama correctly raised the point that global warming could lead to more severe flooding events in the future. Although it’s impossible to link a specific event to global climate change – as Obama was careful not to do – the record-breaking flooding of the Red River in Fargo, North Dakota is consistent with the trend towards increased frequency and severity of extreme precipitation events predicted by the climate science community.<br /><br />“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating,” <a href="http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/235048 " target="_blank">Obama told the reporters</a>. “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’ That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.“<br /><br />But not a single reporter – in the meeting or otherwise – made that critical point in all the Fargo flood coverage over the past week.<br /><br /><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/27/fargo-flooding-extreme-rain-precipitation-snow-global-warming-cei/ " target="_blank">Joe Romm writes on Climate Progress that</a> “you’ll have to look very hard to find a single story in the mainstream media that even mentions climate change (other than the few quoting our President) — even though the record “once-in-a-hundred-year flooding” the Midwest now seems to be getting every few years or so is precisely what scientists have been expecting from the warming.”</p>
<p><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/27/fargo-flooding-extreme-rain-precipitation-snow-global-warming-cei/ " target="_blank"><!--break-->Romm’s post at ClimateProgress.org </a>details the science behind the predictions of more extreme flooding events, providing documentation and explanation that even the laziest reporter could understand. If any of them ever took the time to read it, that is.<br /><br />Romm adds the necessary caveat that reporters shouldn’t go hog wild and “link every extreme weather event” to global warming. That’s not the point, although the <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/05/why-do-the-deniers-try-to-shout-down-any-talk-of-a-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather/ " target="_blank">deniers will say it is ad nauseum</a>. <br /><br />The take-home message for responsible reporters is that “when we have ‘worst on record’ type events, or 100-year floods — and especially ones that last more than a day and hit a broad area — then I think the reporter has an obligation to include the issue [of global warming],” Romm writes.<br /><br />When will reporters begin to oblige? </p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3789';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3789"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4136">fargo flood climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4137">fargo flood global warming</a></div></div></div>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:07:58 +0000Emily Murgatroyd3789 at http://www.desmogblog.comCanada Expects to Sell George W. Bush's Climate Plan to President Obamahttp://www.desmogblog.com/canada-climate-change-prentice-washington
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/ObamaHand.JPG?itok=ngeHGsfr" width="200" height="136" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090302.RCLIMATE02/TPStory/Business">Jim Prentice, Canada’s Environment Minister,</a> lands in the <span class="caps">US</span> capital today as part of the Conservative government’s attempt to ride on Obama’s green coattails on climate change.</p>
<p>But he won’t get too far with the George W. Bush playbook on climate change he’ll be trying to sell the Obama administration.</p>
<p>The problem for Canada and the Harper government is that President Obama is actually planning to do something significant about the issue of climate change, while Canada’s Conservatives continue to spend their time trying to spin a plan that will see their country’s emissions continue to rise.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090302.RCLIMATE02/TPStory/Business">The Globe and Mail rightly points out</a> this morning that during Obama’s visit to Canada two weeks ago:</p>
<p>“The President gave no indication during his trip to Canada that he was enthusiastic about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s idea for a bilateral agreement on climate change.”</p>
<p>No kidding. Obama and his team see right through Canada’s weak, ineffectual plan. After all it’s pretty <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/canadian-pm-harper-repackaging-bushs-carbon-intensity-spin">much the plan set out by former President George W. Bush. </a></p>
<p><!--break-->But for those in Washington who aren’t savvy to the Canadian plan, here’s a quick rundown of the Conservative government’s “spin-tionary” on climate change:</p>
<hr /><p><strong>What they say:</strong></p>
<p>The Canadian government says its committed to an absolute reduction in<strong> <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2131">greenhouse gas emissions of 20% by 2020.</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Reality check:</strong></p>
<p>The Canadian government uses <a href="http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/virage-corner/2008-03/541_eng.htm#introduction">2006 levels as the benchmark for reductions,</a> instead of 1990 which is the internationally recognized benchmark for greenhouse gas emission reductions - and the one used by the vast majority of other countries. When you move the Conservative’s numbers back to 1990 levels, there is a rise in <a href="http://climate.pembina.org/issues/federal-action">emissions of around 2% by 2020.</a></p>
<hr /><p><strong>What they say:</strong></p>
<p>The Canadian government promises<strong> an absolute reduction </strong>in greenhouse gas.</p>
<p><strong>Reality check:</strong></p>
<p>The Canadian government actually plans to measure greenhouse gas emission reductions through <a href="../../canadian-pm-harper-repackaging-bushs-carbon-intensity-spin">“carbon intensity” targets.</a> This means that reductions are measured by the decrease in the amount of greenhouse gas that is emitted per unit of energy - a standard that still allows total emissions to increase. For example, Suncor Energy, one of the largest companies in the Alberta oil sands, once announced that it had reduced its <em>carbon intensity </em>by 51 per cent between 1990 and 2006. However, thanks to huge increases in production - the company’s absolute emissions increased by <a href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/09/10/suncor-releases-climate-change-progress-report/">131 per cent over the same period.</a></p>
<hr /><p>These are the two very big fundamental differences between Canada’s plan and the plan being proposed by President Obama who has committed to reducing absolute <span class="caps">US</span> greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2020, based on 1990 levels. No <span class="caps">PR</span> spin or fancy tricks on the ledger for Obama, just a straighten commitment.</p>
<p>While many are arguing that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51P31K20090226">Obama’s plan does not go far enough,</a> his honesty is refreshing after years of baffle gab and delay from the former White House administration.</p>
<p>Good luck in Washington this week Minister Prentice, you’re going to need it if you plan on sticking George W. Bush’s greenhouse gas inaction plan under the noses of this new administration.</p>
<hr /><p><strong>This month we’re giving away <span class="caps">FREE</span> copies Keith Farnish’s new book <a href="http://greenbooks.co.uk/store/times-up-p-300.html">Times Up: an uncivilzed solution to a global crisis.</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="../../desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3720';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3720"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2558">canada climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3999">canada global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4035">environment minister canada</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4036">jim prentice washington</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4037">prentice visit capitol hill</a></div></div></div>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:54:29 +0000Kevin Grandia3720 at http://www.desmogblog.comPresident Obama's best strategy for Harper and Climate Changehttp://www.desmogblog.com/president-obamas-best-strategy-harper-and-climate-change
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This just might be the soundest strategy for <span class="caps">US</span> President Obama to employ when dealing with Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas reduction.</p>
<p><img src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ObamaHand.JPG" border="0" alt="obama-harper-hand-climate-change" width="512" height="347" /></p>
<p><!--break--></p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3701';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3701"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1115">Stephen Harper</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3415">harper climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3416">harper global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4012">harper obama hand photo</a></div></div></div>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:08:08 +0000Kevin Grandia3701 at http://www.desmogblog.comAre Canada's Tar Sands in Peril?http://www.desmogblog.com/tar-sands-peril
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg?itok=-1wceBYB" width="200" height="203" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s <span class="caps">FREEE</span> monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p>
<p class="p1">Stephen Harper could be in for rude awakening. For years, he has been dealing with likeminded climate change deniers in the Bush Administration who were only too happy to buy as much oil from the filthy Alberta tar sands as they could get their hands on.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">The times they are a changing.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">In the last week, key appointments in Obama’s cabinet have all made a point of detailing the perils of climate change.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p3"><span class="s1">A</span>t his confirmation hearing today, Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate physicist and incoming head of the Energy Department, <span class="s2">warned of the dire consequences of </span><a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/dear_mr_president_dont_go_sout.html"><span class="s2">unchecked global warming</span></a>. In her confirmation hearing, Senator Hillary Clinton said that climate change is an “<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/dear_mr_president_dont_go_sout.html"><span class="s2">unambiguous security threat</span></a>” and pledged an energy policy to reduce our carbon emissions.</p>
<p class="p3">Obama himself has detailed a cap and trade carbon system for the <span class="caps">US</span> that will rely on absolute rather than so-called “intensity” targets championed by Harper’s friends in the Alberta oil patch.</p>
<p class="p3"><!--break-->In contrast, Harper’s own credibility on climate change is almost laughable:</p>
<ul><li>He is proposing carbon reductions based on <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/stephen-harper-the-only-leader-in-north-america-advocating-inaction-on-climate-change"><span class="s2">2006 rather than 1990 emissions</span></a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></li>
<li><span class="s3"><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html">He has called Kyoto a socialist scheme”</a> designed to suck money out of rich countries.</span><span class="s4"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li>
<li>On the world stage, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/poznan-canada-replaces-us-single-worst-country"><span class="s2">Harper has been seen as one the leading forces of obstruction</span></a> to international co-operation on climate change.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></li>
</ul><p class="p5"><span class="s1">Many suspect that Harper is now <a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/a-climate-pass-for-oil-sands/"><span class="s3">lobbying Obama</span></a><span class="s3"> for a continental energy policy that would give a “pass” to Alberta tar sands</span>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<p class="p1">Given the enormous expectations on Obama to bring in real and green change, it is unlikely that he will want to be associated with this tarry mess.</p>
<p class="p1">To say that the tar sands project has a credibility problem is an understatement:</p>
<ul><li><span class="s2"><a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=482931">Over 500 migrating birds were killed</a></span> when they landed on a toxic tailings pond last spring.</li>
<li><span class="s3"><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/12/09/edm-tailings-report.html">Eleven million litres of toxic tailings leak</a></span><span class="s1"> into the environment each day.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li>
<li><span class="s3">A recent poll showed that even in Canada, <a href="http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Technology/Distrust+oilsands+rampant+poll+finds/1158557/story.html">half of people don’t believe what oil executives say</a></span><span class="s1"> about the project.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li>
<li>Carbon <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/dear_mr_president_dont_go_sout.html"><span class="s2">emissions from tar sands oil </span></a><span class="s2">are three times higher</span> than conventional crude and will only grow as near-surface deposits are depleted.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></li>
</ul><p class="p1">There is also no legal requirement for tar sands producers to invest in the highly touted and dubious carbon capture and storage technologies. A recent leaked government memo showed that <span class="s2">not even the Alberta government believes this is viable solution </span><a href="http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/38723"><span class="s2">the massive carbon emissions from the tar sands</span></a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">The laundry list of reasons why Obama will not want to hitch the <span class="caps">US</span> energy wagon to the tar sands only grows longer. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s2">A variety of prominent environmental groups in Canada and the <span class="caps">US</span> today <a href="http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_09011301a.pdf">co-signed a letter to the incoming president</a></span> and his cabinet urging him to reject any overtures from Harper to exempt the oil sands from meaningful regulation of carbon.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Today there was an <span class="s2">article in the New York Times </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/07oilsands.html?ref=business"><span class="s2">detailing the declining economics of the tar sands</span></a>, and the glaring policy inconsistencies with Obama’s stated energy, environmental, and security goals. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Much of the tar sands oil is simply uneconomic to extract if oil prices stay low - something that is bound to continue given the protracted global economic slump. Beyond the obvious environmental issues, long-term production of tar sands oil depends on the whims of world oil prices, adding to the uncertainty of long term supplies.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">It is little wonder why Harper is lobbying the <span class="caps">US</span> so strongly to keep this bitumen boondoggle going. After billions of dollars of investment, this project remains almost entirely dependant on the <span class="caps">US</span> market. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/07oilsands.html?ref=business"><span class="s2"><span class="caps">NYT</span> article detailed how tar sands producers lack the pipeline infrastructure to send their oil elsewhere</span></a> if the Obama Administration decides it is too unethical to buy it.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">It seems increasingly doubtful that Obama would be inclined to compromise his substantial green credibility so early in his presidency by climbing into a tarry bed with Stephen Harper.</p>
<hr /><p><strong>This month we’re giving away <span class="caps">FREE</span> copies </strong><strong><strong><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Coming-Clean/Michael-Brune/e/9781578051496"><em>Coming Clean<span class="subtitle">: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal.</span></em></a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s <span class="caps">FREEE</span> monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3631';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3631"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3415">harper climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3416">harper global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3605">obama oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3606">obama tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3900">harper tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3901">harper oil sands</a></div></div></div>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:38:31 +0000Mitchell Anderson3631 at http://www.desmogblog.com2008 Presidential candidates on global warminghttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/3568
<div class="field field-name-field-video field-type-file field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="media-youtube-video media-youtube-1">
<iframe class="media-youtube-player" width="640" height="390" title="p9pHy_Uz5g0" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/p9pHy_Uz5g0?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>Video of p9pHy_Uz5g0</iframe>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="description">Katie Couric asked ten leading 2008 presidential contenders about global warming. <br /></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3796">katie couric global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3797">katie couric climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3798">2008 presidential candidates global warming</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-18 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Video:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3599">Deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3725">Leaders</a></div></div></div>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:57:24 +0000Kevin Grandia3568 at http://www.desmogblog.comRevving the Climate Policy Enginehttp://www.desmogblog.com/revving-climate-policy-engine-0
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/obama-yes-we-can_0.jpg?itok=6TG8Z6aC" width="200" height="150" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>All the pieces seem to be falling into place this week.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even as renewable energy stocks continued to plummet along with the rest of the market—the <a href="http://www.invescopowershares.com/products/overview.aspx?ticker=PBW">PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy Index,</a> which seeks to represent the industry, has declined 37 percent this year—we’re finally seeing some striking signals that at last things will be different when it comes to climate and energy policy.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As recently as last week, my colleague <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/the-climate-policy-change-we-need">Sheril Kirshenbaum</a> wrote here that while we’re on the verge of a sea change, it was still unclear precisely how the incoming Obama administration would move on global warming.</p>
<!--break-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><code><br /></code></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since then, the picture has gotten much clearer, especially in Congress. Consider the following three major developments:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First: On Tuesday, President-elect Obama released a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html?hp">video statement</a> for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Global Climate Summit, taking place in Beverly Hills. Promising that his presidency would “mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” Obama went on to say that the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> would reengage internationally on climate change. As the <em>New York Times</em> noted, these remarks made global warming the “second major policy area” that Obama has addressed since his election, with the first of course being the economy.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second: Today Rep. <a href="http://www.house.gov/waxman/">Henry Waxman</a>, D-<span class="caps">CA</span>, pulled off a stunning and successful challenge for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Environment Committee, knocking out Rep. John Dingell, D-<span class="caps">MI</span>, long known as a staunch defender of the sinking auto industry. Waxman, in contrast, has been an incredibly determined battler for environmental protections and scientific integrity, not to mention a relentless exposer of government corruption and an incredible foe of the tobacco industry. This means the chief House committee that will deal with global warming is headed by a very progressive environmentalist and the toughest of fighters.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third: Today Senator <a href="http://boxer.senate.gov/">Barabara Boxer </a>(D-<span class="caps">CA</span>), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, announced plans to introduce two major climate bills almost immediately after the president-elect’s inauguration. The legislation would closely align with Barack Obama’s campaign promises for large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and comes just days after his announcement that global warming denial will cease to be <span class="caps">US</span> policy. The first bill Boxer described as a “stimulus” to spend up to $ 15 billion per year on clean energy innovations. The second would set up a cap-and-trade system, run by the Environmental Protection agency, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Boxer also announced the title of the first hearing that she will hold in the new year: “How Fighting Global Warming is Good for the Economy and Will Create Jobs.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Based on all of this, we can make several observations. I have to start with this one: Isn’t California–my home state, represented by Boxer, Waxman, and Schwarzenegger–just amazing when it comes to global warming?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But still more important: After incredible incompetence, denial of reality, and the jeopardizing our future by the Bush administration, it’s clear we’re finally ready to reverse course. Big things are going to happen in early 2009, and now we know it will be Waxman, Boxer, and Obama working together to make it happen. All indications are that they will be taking some very <em>strong</em> steps: For cap-and-trade, Obama wants to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Granted, there are still some pieces of the puzzle to fill in. We don’t know yet who will head the Obama administration’s Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, or White House Council on Environmental Quality.These appointees will play a critical role in determining ultimate <span class="caps">U.S.</span> policy in these areas.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We also don’t know how bad the economy is going to look come January. Up until recently it seemed the Dow had found a bottom around 8,000. Now we’re down to 7,500, and still falling.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[At this point, wouldn’t it be nice if President Bush would just announce that he’ll do whatever Obama wants for the remainder of his term, no questions asked?]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At least we know that in January we’ll finally have a bold, government wide effort to stimulate the economy, address our energy crisis, and stop global warming–all before it’s too late.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And let’s hope it isn’t.</p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3475';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3475"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1028">chris mooney</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3615">waxman global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3616">waxman climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3618">waxman</a></div></div></div>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:02:00 +0000Chris Mooney3475 at http://www.desmogblog.comBad News for Big Oilhttp://www.desmogblog.com/bad-news-for-big-oil
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/blog-full-3453.jpg?itok=sddP4I-8" width="160" height="200" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">
Oil industry operatives are sweating bullets over whether the incoming Obama Administration will be keen to buy “<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=610810"><span class="s1">dirty oil</span></a>” from Alberta tar sands. The early news for them is not good. <p class="p1">The president-elect last week <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/13/obama-environment-message-biden"><span class="s1">sent</span></a> Jason Grumet, a policy adviser mentioned for a possible energy post, to an environmental conference in Washington to offer reassurances that there would be swift movement on climate change legislation. Observers feel this is an early sign that Obama is taking a hard line on carbon.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">“<em>The whole transition team felt it important to be here,</em>” Grumet said. <em>“I think it is going to be a very very busy 2009, and I think we are going to need all of you to be on top of your game.”</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">Grumet is also no fan of the filthy oil coming from the tar sands. In June, he <a href="http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43765"><span class="s1">told</span></a> reporters, <em>“The amount of energy that you have to use to get that [tar sands] oil out of the ground is such that it actually creates a much greater impact on climate change.”</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1"><em>“We [Obama's team] are going to support resources… that meet our long-term obligations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. And I think it's an open question as to whether or not the Canadian resources are going to meet those tests,”</em> said Grumet.</p> <p class="p1">You can almost feel posteriors puckering across the oil patch. After all, what good is the world’s <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081021/tar_sands_081021/20081021/"><span class="s1">largest</span></a> capital project, if the <span class="caps">US</span> doesn’t want to buy what it produces?</p> <p class="p1">So far over $200 billion has been sunk into this bitumen boondoggle. Flagging oil prices, a slowing economy and now a new Administration committed to a green energy future all add up to bad news for big oil.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">No surprise then that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper virtually <a href="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c88834d1-b8e8-4985-a44a-b3fb1b906a2b"><span class="s1">lunged</span></a> at the newly elected Obama with a protect-the-oil-sands-plan almost before the victory confetti had hit the ground in Chicago.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p3"><span class="s2">According to analyst <a href="http://www.thespec.com/article/465133"><span class="s1">Gwen Dyer</span></a>, <em>“</em></span><em>Harper's strategy is transparent. He wants a climate-change pact with the United States in which Alberta's “dirty oil” is exempted from controls on the grounds that it contributes to that other American national goal, “energy independence.”</em></p> <p class="p1">Dyer points out that the boogieman of an oil embargo of the kind that traumatized the <span class="caps">US</span> in 1973 has long since become a red herring. Why? Because since ’73 oil-exporting nations such as Saudi Arabia have become as addicted to selling the west their oil as we have become at buying it.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">Saudi Arabia seen its population <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saudi-Arabia-demography.png"><span class="s1">triple</span></a> in the last thirty five years. Even with this massive increase in people, their per capita <span class="caps">GDP</span> has also risen by a stunning <a href="http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-638.html"><span class="s1">556%</span></a> between 1973 and 2006. Yet as of 2007, non-oil manufacturing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia%22%20%5Cl%20%22Diversification"><span class="s1">contributed</span></a> a mere 10% to Saudi Arabian <span class="caps">GDP</span> and less than 6% of total employment. If America has an oil monkey on its back, so do the Saudis.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">Real “energy independence” has much more to do with reducing carbon emissions and avoiding shoveling billions of dollars into someone else's economy. Canada would of course enjoy the <span class="caps">US</span> pouring all that cash into our coffers instead, but that will not help the American trade balance much more than buying Saudi crude. </p> <p class="p3"><span class="s2">According to <a href="http://www.thespec.com/article/465133"><span class="s1">Dyer</span></a>, <em>“</em></span><em>Stephen Harper is appealing to the stupid version of the energy independence policy: Maybe the Ay-rabs won't sell you their oil, but the Canadians always will. It will be instructive to see if Obama falls for it.”</em></p><p class="p3"><br /></p> <p class="p2"><br /></p> <p class="p2"><br /></p> </div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3461';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3461"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2509">alberta tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2580">alberta oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3603">barack obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3604">obama canada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3605">obama oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3606">obama tar sands</a></div></div></div>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:35:19 +0000Mitchell Anderson3461 at http://www.desmogblog.comA Landslide Victory for Obama In Antarcticahttp://www.desmogblog.com/a-landslide-victory-for-obama-in-antarctica
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-3444.jpg?itok=Yb8BYVsi" width="200" height="133" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="entry_body_text"> <p><strong>Dear Mr. President-Elect,</strong></p> <p><strong>Greetings from Antarctica! </strong></p> <p>I'm about to begin my mission to become the <a href="/todds_trek">first American in history to reach the South Pole, solo and unaided. </a> I'll start walking November 8th from the edge of the ice pack and, if all goes according to plan, arrive at the Pole just after Christmas. If you have a minute around then, I'd love to hear from you, just ring my satellite phone. </p><p>It's the least you could do, I mean, I delivered the vote for you here in the Deep South (so to speak). </p> <p>All kidding aside, I cast my ballot for Obama/Biden in advance and did all the fundraising I could in my hometown of Philadelphia before leaving for the seventh continent. Your progressive stance on fighting global warming and your bold vision for our renewable energy future made my decision pretty easy. But the main reason I voted for you is because of the effects of climate change I've witnessed first-hand here in Antarctica. </p> <p>Last year, during my second solo attempt to reach the South Pole, I was stopped <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-carmichael/something-strange-is-happ_b_113138.html">dead in my tracks by something this continent rarely experiences.</a> Snow. A full-blown blizzard, in fact. </p> <p>Most people probably aren't aware of the fact that Antarctica is the driest continent on Earth; it's literally a desert of ice with an average of a single inch of precipitation each year. So what I experienced was akin to standing in the middle of the Sahara during the dry season and getting whacked by a torrential downpour. </p> <p>As I stood there blinded by the whiteout that had enveloped me, I called a friend back at base camp, a veteran explorer marking his 31st straight year of Antarctic expeditions. “I've never seen anything like this mate. I don't know what to make of it,” he replied.</p> <p>Things are changing here, way too fast. </p> <p>That type of extreme weather is becoming all too common around the globe, and scientists have no doubt that we humans are disrupting the climate, with potentially devastating impacts for humanity. It's high time for bold action.</p> <p>When I succeed in reaching the South Pole on December 26th, the greatest reward I could imagine wouldn't be a trip to Disney World. It'd be receiving a call from you, confirming your commitment to fight global warming aggressively and work to end our fossil fuel addiction <span class="caps">ASAP</span>. </p> <p>If you'd like to receive news from me during the trek, I'll be blogging from my tent,<a href="/expedition_elerts"> just sign up for my expedition e-lerts.</a><br /></p> </div> <!-- single link --> <div style="display: none"> <ul><li class="first"> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/election-reaction/">Election Reaction</a> <br /></li><li> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/climate-change/">Climate change</a> <br /></li><li> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/barack-obama/">Barack Obama</a> <br /></li><li class="last"> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/global-warming/">Global Warming</a> <br /></li></ul><div> <div> Dear Mr. President-Elect, Greetings from Antarctica! I'm about to begin my mission to become the first American in history to reach the South Pole, solo and unaided. I'll start walking November 8… </div> <div> Dear Mr. President-Elect, Greetings from Antarctica! I'm about to begin my mission to become the first American in history to reach the South Pole, solo and unaided. I'll start walking November 8… </div> </div> </div> <!-- chicklets --> <div class="chicklets_footer_cont"> <div id="chicklets" class="chicklets"> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/syndication/" title="RSS"><br /></a><a href="javascript:void(w=window.open('http://www.mixx.com/submit/story?page_url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-carmichael/a-landslide-victory-for-o_b_141955.html&amp;title=Todd%20Carmichael: A%20Landslide%20Victory%20for%20Obama%20In%20Antarctica&amp;tag=green&amp;partner=HP'));w.focus();"> </a> </div> </div> <!-- single link --> <h2><br /></h2></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3444';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3444"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/947">antarctic</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1567">Antarctica</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3019">todd carmichael</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3020">expedition earth</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3571">climate change antarctica</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3572">climate change antarctic</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3573">gobal warming antarctica</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3574">global warming antarctic</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3575">obama climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3576">obama global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3577">solo antarctic</a></div></div></div>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:13:15 +0000Todd Carmichael3444 at http://www.desmogblog.com